108 Christian Hermann Weisse, Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christentums, 3 vols., 1855, 60, 62; vol. i., 712 pp. On the Pauline Epistles, pp. 144-147.
109 On Romans see also vol. iii. of the Philosophische Dogmatik (1862,
736 pp.), pp. 263, 264.
The Epistle to the Ephesians, the Second to the Corinthians, and
the First to Timothy, Weisse holds to be “entirely unapostolic”; in
the Epistle to Titus and the Second to Timothy he is prepared to
recognise as a possibility the genuineness of the personal notices.
110 In 2 Corinthians, which shows no evidence of interpolation, three different letters to this church are worked up together.
111 Christian Hermann Weisse, Beiträge zur Kritik der paulinischen
Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper und Kolosser (“Contributions
to the Criticism of the Pauline Epistles to the Galatians, Romans,
Philippians, and Colossians”). Edited by E. Sulze, 1867, 65 pp. By
way of introduction the pupil prefixes an essay on the principles of
his master’s “stylistic criticism.”
In the reconstructed texts it is apparent that the author had spent
on them, as he says in his Dogmatic, the “diligent work of many years.”
It is a piece of really skilled workmanship.
112 Daniel Völter, Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, 1882, 72 pp. Die Komposition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe, 1890, 174 pp. The Epistles examined are those to the Romans and Galatians. Paulus und seine Briefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der paulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie, 1905, 331 pp. Here he deals with Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. The results arrived at in the previous book are, as a rule, taken over. Völter rejects the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians, and sees in the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, and in the Pastorals, new “phases in the development” of Paulinism.
113 In its original form it consisted, Völter thinks, of the following sections: i. I, 5b-7, 8-17; v. I-12, 15-19, 21; vi. I-13, 6:16-23; chapters xii. and xiii.; xiv. I-xv. 6; xv. 14-16, 23b-33, xvi 21-24.
114 Völter is also able to indicate additions which have taken place
subsequently to this redaction.
The interpolations in Philippians relate, according to him, chiefly
to Christology and eschatology. The author of these additions had
before him Romans and Corinthians in their interpolated form, and
was also doubtless acquainted with Galatians.
115 The well-known German religious journal.
116 The labour of making an inventory of what has been done in this
kind of criticism up to the year 1894 was undertaken by C. Clemen
in his work, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand
der bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und
Kompilationshypothesen (“The Integrity of the Pauline Epistles, with Reference
to the Hypotheses of Interpolation or Compilation which have been
applied to them”), 1894, 183 pp. He takes account also of all
contributions to the journals. This gives a special value to this laborious
and unselfish work.
A survey of previous work in conjectural criticism is given by
J. M. S. Baljon in De Tekst der Brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen,
de Corinthiërs en de Galatiërs, 1884, 189 pp.
117 Friedrich Spitta, Untersuchungen über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer (“A Study of the Epistle to the Romans”), 1901, 193 pp. In the work Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. iii. part i.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VI THE POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
118 Otto Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren, 2nd ed., 1902, vol. i. 696 pp. On Paul, pp. 24-335. (Eng. trans. “Primitive Christianity,” vol. i. pp. 33-471.)
119 On this point Pfleiderer follows suggestions given by Teichmann in his work, Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht (“The Pauline Conceptions of Resurrection and Judgment”), 1896, 125 pp. As a matter of fact he cannot any more than his predecessors give any proof of this evolution.
120 Paul Wernle, Die Anfänge unserer Religion, 1st ed., 1901, 410 pp.
On Paul, pp. 95-220. By the same author, Paulus als Heidenmissionar
(“Paul as a Missionary to the Gentiles”), Lecture, 1899, 36 pp. Heinrich
Weinel, Paulus, 1904, 316 pp. The book grew out of essays which
the author published in the Christliche Welt. By the same author,
Paulus als kirchlicher Organisator. (Inaugural Lecture.) 1899, 30 pp.
Other works from this popular literature are: Adolf Harnack, Das
Wesen des Christentums, 1900, 189 pp. On Paul, pp. 110-118. Georg
Hollmann, Urchristentum in Corinth, 1903, 32 pp. Paul Feine, Paulus
als Theologe, 1906, 80 pp. Carl Munzinger, Paulus in Corinth. Neue
Wege zum Verständnis des Urchristentums (“Paul in Corinth. New
Ways of arriving at an Understanding of Early Christianity.”) 1908,
208 pp. The author pictures the work of the Apostle in the Greek
city in the light of analogies offered by modern missionary practice.
Whether the new way really leads to a better understanding of
primitive Christianity remains open to question.
As a special investigation of a point of detail at this date we may
mention Karl Dick’s work, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus
(“The Author’s ‘We’ in Paul’s Writings.”) 1900, 169 pp. There are
not many of these studies at this period since the tendency among
theologians has been more to popularisation than to scientific research.
121 Paulus als Heidenmissionar, p. 36. Ernst von Dobschütz calls attention to the dangers of this method, which easily becomes unscientific in Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters. (Five Lectures, 1904, 138 pp. See p. 61.) Paul Feine, Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus nach seinem Werdegange dargestellt, 1899, 232 pp. Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, 309 pp. Arthur Titius, Der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit (2nd Part of the work Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart—“The New Testament Doctrine of Final Blessedness and its Significance for the present Time”), 1900, 290 pp. A. Schlatter, in his NTle. Theologie (Pt. ii. The doctrine of the Apostles, 1910, 592 pp. On Paul, 199-407), follows a conservative biblico-theological method like that of B. Weiss.
122 R. Drescher, too “Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus” in Festgruss
an Stade, 1900, pp. 101-161, is of opinion that the letters, rightly
understood, offer us “an imposing amount of material” on the
life of Jesus. The author thinks that wherever possible Paul referred
to the teaching of Jesus; and he fought his battle for freedom from
the law with such confidence “because he knew that he had Jesus
on his side.”
It should be mentioned that J. Wellhausen takes up a similar
stand-point. He gives it as his opinion, Israelitische und jüdische
Geschichte (6th ed., 1907, 386 pp.), that Paul “was really the man
who best understood the Master and carried on His work.”
123 L’Apôtre Paul et Jésus-Christ, 1904, 393 pp.
124 Adolf Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., 1909, vol. i., 826 pp. See p. 107. To the same effect, Adolf Jülicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907, 72 pp. See p. 34.
125 Hermann Jakoby. Neutestamentliche Ethik, 1899, 480 pp. On
Paul, pp. 243-406. Alfred Juncker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus,
part i., 1904, 288 pp.
Among other monographs we have to notice Emil Sokolowski’s Die
Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehung zu einander,
1903, 284 pp. The author ascribes little importance to Greek influence
in comparison with Jewish, and tries to explain what is peculiar and
vital in the Apostle’s views as due to his individual experience,
especially the vision on the Damascus road.
Hans Windisch, Die Entsündigung des Christen nach Paulus, 1908,
132 pp. The difficulties raised for Paul by his mysticism are pointed
out. It is shown that this, strictly speaking, makes it impossible for
him to admit sin in the case of baptized persons. The eschatological
character of the sacramental-mystical theory of deliverance from sin
is strongly brought out. The author continues the investigation which
Paul Wernle, in his work Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus (1897,
138 pp.), was the first to undertake. See p. 60 of the present work.
126 Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1903, 512 pp. Simultaneously appeared the same
writer’s work, Die jüdische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche
Herkunft und ihre Bedeutung für das neue Testament (“Jewish
Apocalyptic, its Origin in the Light of Comparative Religion and its
Significance for the New Testament.” A Lecture, 1903.)
Eschatology receives special attention in the fine work of Hugo
Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch jüdischen Eschatologie (“The
Origin of the Israelitish and Jewish Eschatology”), 1905, 378 pp. The
author takes up an attitude of some reserve in regard to the
“religious-historical method,” and seeks to determine in the case of every
statement whether it can have arisen in Israel or must be regarded as having
been introduced from without.
Paul Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, 1903, 412 pp.,
endeavours, somewhat unconvincingly, to give a sketch of Jewish
conceptions of the future age.
Everling’s investigations are continued, on modern lines, by a study
of Martin Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909, 249 pp.
(“The World of Spirits as conceived in Paul’s Belief”). In addition to
the Late Jewish passages the author cites also the Rabbinical and
those suggested by the Comparative Study of Religion. The
excursuses on the linguistic history of the subject are very instructive
(pp. 209-232). On Everling, see pp. 55-57 of the present work.
127 G. F. Heinrici’s work, Das Urchristentum, 1902, 142 pp., still
occupies the old stand-point. On Paul, pp. 71-101. For what he has to
say against the “physical” in the doctrine of redemption, see pp. 95, 96.
W. Bousset, Der Apostel Paulus, 1906, holds that we shall never
completely understand the Apostle’s doctrine. We must make up
our minds to the fact . . that in his letters we have before us
only fragments of his spiritual life, the full wealth of which we can only
vaguely imagine. The individual arguments of Paul look to us like
erratic boulders; only toilsomely and partially can we reconstruct the
connexion of thought.
128 Rendering naturhaft. Dr. Schweitzer has favoured me with the following note on this difficult concept, which from this point becomes prominent in the discussions. After consultation with him, the word has been rendered “physical,” but placed in quotation marks to indicate the special use.—TRANSLATOR. “In the special sense in which it is here used naturhaft is intended to convey that it is not a question of a purely spiritual redemption, but that the whole physical and hyperphysical being of the man is thereby translated into a new condition. Body and soul are redeemed together; and in such a way that not only the elect portion of mankind, but the whole world is completely transformed in a great catastrophic event.”
129 Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. ii., 1897, pp. 175-187.
130 W. Heitmüller, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus, 1903, 56 pp.
131 How unwilling theology was to draw this inevitable inference is to be seen from the works of Weinel and Heitmüller. They refuse to go beyond the statement that the sacraments stand in sharp opposition to the real “religion” of Paul, and think that they have solved the problem by asserting that the Apostle of the Gentiles did not notice the contradiction. Weinel remarks, “Paul himself is quite unconscious of the problem raised by the collision of the ‘physical’ doctrine of redemption of the Mysteries with the ethical doctrine of Christianity.” Heitmüller says, “These views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper stand in unreconciled and unreconcilable opposition with the central significance of faith for Pauline Christianity, that is to say, with the purely spiritual, personal view of the religious relation which stands in the foreground of Pauline religious life and religious thought.”
132 William Wrede, Paulus, 1904, 113 pp. (In the series entitled “Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher.”)
133 In the sense of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
134 How far Wrede was consciously influenced by Kabisch, and how far he has the sense of creating something new, is not quite evident. He reckons the book among the “very important studies on special points,” to which he refers in the bibliography, but he does not quote it.
135 C. von Dobschütz, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (“Problems of the Apostolic Age,” 1904, 138 pp.), does not enter in detail into the question regarding the genesis of the Pauline view of the law, although he treats Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity with some fulness.
136 See the present writer’s Von Reimarus zu Wrede, eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906, 418 pp.). On Wrede, pp. 327-347. (English translation, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” A. and C. Black, London, 2nd ed., 1911. On Wrede, pp. 328-348.)
137 This thesis of Wrede’s called into being a new literature upon
Paul and Jesus which attacked Wrede chiefly on the score of his
one-sidedness.
P. Kölbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus,
1906 (“The Spiritual Influence of the Person of Jesus on Paul”).
Adolf Jülicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907, 72 pp. Arnold Meyer,
Wer hat das Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus? 1907, 104 pp.
(“Who founded Christianity, Jesus or Paul?”) Wilhelm Walther, Pauli
Christentum, Jesu Evangelium, 1908, 51 pp. Johannes Weiss, Paulus
und Jesus, 1909, 72 pp. Christus: Die Anfänge des Dogmas, 1909, 88 pp.
(“Christ: The Beginnings of Dogma”).
138 Martin Brückner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie,
1903, 237 pp.
The work appeared some months before Wrede’s Paulus, but the
author, who had the opportunity of personal intercourse and the
interchange of ideas with him, was acquainted with his method and
fundamental views. As he is also an independent thinker, his work
represents not only a supplement but a real advance.
139 Viz. the Jewish conception of the Messiah.—TRANSLATOR.
140 William Olschewski replies to Wrede and Brückner in his thoughtful but obscure and heavily written dissertation, Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie (1909, 170 pp.) (“The Roots of the Pauline Eschatology”). He thinks that the origin of Christianity which they suggest does not explain the “characteristic and peculiar connexion of Christology with Pneumatology,” and insists that in the Damascus vision is to be found the sufficient reason for “the intimately organic fusion” of the conception of Christ with that of the Spirit which operates through Him. In any case he holds it to be “false in principle and method to try to derive the roots of the Pauline Christology from the Jewish Apocalyptic Christology.”
141 From the literature we may mention A. Schettler, Die paulinische
Formel “Durch Christus” (“The Pauline Formula Through Christ”),
1907, 82 pp. J. Haussleiter, Paulus, 1909, 96 pp. (Lectures, popular.)
R. Knopf, Paulus, 1909, 123 pp. Eberhard Vischer, Der Apostel
Paulus und sein Werk, 1910, 143 pp. By the same author, Die
Paulusbriefe, 1906, 80 pp. A remarkably good, clearly and simply
written guide to questions of “Introduction.” Julius Schniewind,
Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium bei Paulus (“The Meaning of the
Terms ‘Word’ and ‘Gospel’ in Paul’s Writings”), 1910, 120 pp.
Johannes Müller, Die Entstehung des persönlichen Christentums
der paulinischen Gemeinden, 1911, 306 pp. A good analysis of
the general contents of Paul’s gospel. The theological system and
the mysticism of the Apostle are not explained. The book is the
second edition of a study which appeared in 1898 under the title Das
persönliche Christentum der paulinischen Gemeinden nach seiner
Entstehung untersucht (“An Investigation of the Origin of the Personal
Christianity of the Pauline Churches”).
Adolf Deissmann, Paulus, 1911, 202 pp. The book grew out of
lectures. The author is opposed to the method of investigation which
aims at understanding the “System of Pauline Theology,” and thinks
that in following these “doctrinaire interests” it would go further
and further astray. For him Paul is primarily “a hero of the religious
life” for whom “theology is a secondary matter.” He holds that the
Apostle was more a man of prayer and testimony, a confessor and a
prophet, than a learned exegete and laborious dogmatist.
His aim is, with the aid of reminiscences of two journeys to the
East, to “place the man of Tarsus in the sunlight of his Anatolian home,
and in the clear air of the ancient Mediterranean lands,” and he believes
that when this is done “what previously tired our eyes, like a set of
faded and rubbed pencil sketches, becomes at once plastic and living
in its light and shadow.” This hope is by no means realised in his
work. It appears here, as was also noticeable in the writer’s earlier Licht
vom Osten (“Light from the East”), that he has a high appreciation of
local colour and the memorials of ancient civilisation, but when it comes
really to explaining the ideas he is not able to draw nearly so much
profit from them as he expected. And his contempt for “doctrinaire
interests” revenges itself upon his treatment. It is obscure and
confused, and does not get at the essence of the thoughts. In regard to
Paul’s mysticism Deissmann has applied new catchwords to old
psychological considerations, but in nowise contributes to the explanation of
it. After Wrede’s Paulus, his book seems a kind of anachronism.
It is, besides, not fitting that what professes to be a new view should
be presented in the inadequate form of a collection of lectures.
142 Adolf Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., vol. i., 1909, 826 pp. On Paul, pp. 96-107 (3rd ed., 1893).
143 Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., vol i.,
1908, 570 pp. On Paul, 68-78. The first circle of ideas embraces the
thoughts regarding flesh and spirit, the power of grace and the strength
of sin, Christ and the new creation; the second consists of the formulas
which were created in opposition to Jewish Christianity; the third
has to do with the mystical body of Christ, in which the natural
distinctions between men are abolished. On points of detail there are
many discriminating observations. The first edition, of 1895, did not
even contain any section on Paul.
The 4th ed. of Loofs’ Dogmengeschichte (1906, vol. i., 576 pp.) does
not deal with the Apostle of the Gentiles, any more than the preceding
editions.
144 On Kabisch see above, pp. 58-63.
145 A sifting and a survey of results is offered in the closing chapter, “Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem” (448-493) in Bousset’s book, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1903 (“The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times”).
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VII PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION
146 Hermann Usener, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: “Das Weihnachtsfest” (1889, 337 pp.); “Die Sintflutsagen” (1899, 276 pp.) (“Studies in Comparative Religion, ‘Christmas,’ 1889. ‘The Flood-legends,’ 1899”). Other works which played an important part in creating the new horizon were Albrecht Dieterich’s works on Comparative Religion, Abraxas (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth of the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and Nekyia, contributions to the explanation of the “Apocalypse of Peter” (1893, 238 pp.). The description of the torments of hell in the Akhmim fragment is based, he thinks, not on Jewish eschatology, but on conceptions which are found in the Orphic literature.
147 Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 1st ed., 1906;
2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year 1905
in the Collège de France.
We may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach’s Cultes,
mythes et religions, 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).
Otto Gruppe, Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung
zu den orientalischen Religionen (“Greek cults and Myths in their
relation to the Oriental Religions”), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and
Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (“Greek Mythology
and the History of Greek Religions”). In Iwan Müller’s Handbuch der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (“Handbook of Classical
Antiquities”), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.
Georg Mau. Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen
Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter (“The Emperor Julian’s
Philosophy of Religion in his Orations on King Helios and the Dea
Mater”), 1908, 169 pp. In the appendix there is a German translation
of both discourses.
Of a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong’s Das
antike Mysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und
psychologischer Beleuchtung (“The Ancient Mystery-religions in the
Light of Comparative Religion, Ethnology, and Psychology”), 1909.
362 pp. The author is disposed to cite the modern occult
“manifestations” in relation to the astral body in order to explain certain
“appearances” in the ceremonies of initiation to the mysteries.
148 On what follows see Hugo Hepding, Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult, 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of “Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,” edited by Dieterich and Wünsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, Kultübertragungen (Cultus-Transferences: “Magna Mater,” “Asklepios,” “Sarapis”). In the same series vol. viii., 1909.
149 On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, Les Religions orientales, pp. 101-103.
150 Note the admission of Hugo Hepding at the close of his chapter on the Mysteries (p. 199):—“I am well aware that this account of the Phrygian Mysteries is in its details mainly hypothetical. In view of the paucity of the information which has come down to us, nothing else is possible. In particular the association of the blood baptism with the March festival cannot be shown from our documentary material.....” He wants to distinguish between an earlier and a later form of the taurobolium. The earlier form is not a ceremony of initiation but a sacrifice. It was only the later which had in view the initiation of the individual. “The first person whom we know by literary evidence to have undergone the ceremony of the taurobolium is Heliogabalus.”
151 On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, Psyche (3rd ed., 1909) pp. 278-300. From his account it clearly appears how little we know about these ceremonies of initiation. In any case they were quite different from those of the later Mystery-religions. They belong to early Greek religion.
152 Franz Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1902).
153 Albrecht Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, 1st ed., 1903; 2nd ed., 1910 (edited after the author’s death by Richard Wünsch), 248 pp. The excursuses, pp. 92-212, really give a sketch of the fundamental ideas of the Mystery-religions in general. Cumont refuses to regard the document as a fragment belonging to a Mithras-liturgy because he cannot find in it the specific characteristics of the Persian eschatology and conception of heaven. On this controversy see the 2nd edition of the Mithras-liturgy, pp. 225-228. It would certainly have been better if Dieterich had not given the book the unnecessary and contentious title.
154 From Dieterich, p. 15.
155 Richard Reitzenstein, Poimandres. Studies in Graeco-Egyptian and Early Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres “community” [Gemeinde, the word is in quotation marks in the German, perhaps to recall its frequent use in speaking of the Early Christian Church] is supposed to have been founded in Egypt about the time of the birth of Christ. Its main characteristic is the mystical basis of the doctrine. Later on, in the course of the third century (?) the Poimandres community was gradually merged in the general Hermetic communities.
156 From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, Zum
religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments (“Contributions
to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative
Religion”), 1903, 96 pp.
Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren
Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum (“The Hellenistic-Roman
Civilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity”), 1907, 190 pp.
Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten (“Light from the Ancient East”),
1908, 364 pp. This book, which is rather rhetorically written, treats
mainly the general literary side of the matter without entering specially
into the religious problems and the ideas of the Mystery-religions. The
same author has published a lecture, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums
im Lichte der Sprachforschung (“The History of Primitive Christianity
in the Light of Linguistic Research”), 1910, 48 pp.
Karl Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments
(“Interpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative
Religion”), 1909, 301 pp.
Works which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject
are: Wilhelm Soltau, Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen
Kirche (“The Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian
Church”), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des
Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (“Mission and Expansion
of Christianity in the first three Centuries”), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp.
157 Gustav Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf
das Christentum, 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in
some respects supplementing Anrich’s work, is Georg Wobbermin’s
Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des
Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen (“Studies from the Point of
View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence of the
ancient Mysteries upon Christianity”), 1896, 190 pp.
Johannes Geffken in his popular work, Aus der Werdezeit des
Christentums, 2nd ed., 1909, 126 pp. (“From the Formative Period of
Christianity”), does not hold that any very deep influence was exercised by the
Graeco-Roman Syncretism on early Christianity. He is, however, of
opinion that Paul “adopted all kinds of oriental views.”
158 See e.g. Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie, 2nd ed., p. 110. Typical also are
pp. 176, 177, where he continually speaks of the “death and re-birth”
of believers as taught by Paul.
[Wiedergeburt has been translated “re-birth” when the general
sense implied in the comparison with other religions is in view;
“regeneration” when the reference is primarily to the specific Christian
doctrine as such.]
159 P. Gennrich in his book, Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in dogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (“The Doctrine of Regeneration ... in the Light of the History of Dogma, and of Comparative Religion”), 1907, 363 pp., notes that Paul speaks only of the “new creature” and not of regeneration; but he does not investigate the cause of this peculiarity, but hastens to give a psychological explanation of his utterances as a “precipitate from his personal experience.”
160 See the introduction to Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 2nd ed., 1909.
161 Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Brückner, Der
sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen
und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum (“The divine Saviour who dies
and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation to
Christianity”). In the series of Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher, 1908, 48 pp.
“As in Christianity, so in many Oriental religions, a belief in the death
and resurrection of a Redeemer-God, who was subordinated to the
Supreme God (sometimes as His Son) occupied a central place in the
worship and cultus.” What manipulation the myths and rites of the
cults in question must have undergone before this general statement
could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and
resurrection in Mithra? It is instructive to see how the author on p. 30
argues away the effect of this admission!
A popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf
Jacoby’s work, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum
(“The ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity”), 1910, 44 pp., in
the series of Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher. The author deserves
special credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they
can form their own impression.
Dieterich remarks with great justice in the Mithrasliturgie (2nd ed.,
207) how necessary it is to get beyond the catchword “Syncretistic,”
and point out in every case the source of particular mythological
statements and ideas.
162 O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious thought never really had the conception of a “world-redeemer” (Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte), vol. ii., pp. 1488-1489. It cannot, in fact, be otherwise. The “world-redeemer” of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought corresponds to the “new world” which he is in some supernatural fashion to bring in, in order to reign in it along with the elect. Graeco-oriental religions did not look for a kingdom of that kind, and therefore the idea of the ruler of such a kingdom was also undiscoverable and unattainable for them. The Messiah is the World-redeemer or Lord of the coming age. He does not make atonement for the guilt of mankind nor for that of individuals, but suffers and dies vicariously for the elect, and in order to set the events of the End in motion. His earthly fate is nothing in itself, but falls wholly under the conception of the “Messianic woes” which are thought of as the tribulation of the Times of the End. How can it be proposed to find an analogue to a figure of this kind in myths, the scene of which is laid in the dawn of the world, and which have no sort of relation to its ultimate fate.
163 P. 102 ff. He has at this point a detailed discussion of the relations
between the cultus-meal in Paul and that of the Mystery-religions.
On the sacraments see also K. Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche
Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the
Supper, 165-207.
164 Mithrasliturgie, 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108.
165 Therefore the statement that Jesus baptized in the Judaean country (Jn iii. 22) is corrected to the effect that He Himself did not baptize, but only the disciples (Jn iv. 2).
166 Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein.
167 W. Heitmüller, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus (“Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Paul’s teaching”). A description and an investigation in the light of Comparative Religion, 1903, 56 pp. These journeyings on pp. 40-42.
168 i.e. Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears later, with Reitzenstein, who is described as the “Pneumatic” of the science.
169 Albert Eichhorn, Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament (“The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament,” 1898, 31 pp.), similarly holds that in Paul we have before us a sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ which can only be explained as based on Oriental Gnostic presuppositions. He is, however, constrained to admit that we have no knowledge of a “sacramental meal which could have served as the model for the Lord’s Supper.” But this does not shake his faith in his theory. He thinks that proof is only wanting because there is here a gap in our historical knowledge. He has calculated out the position of the planet; the mere fact that it cannot be discovered with the telescope is wholly due to the inadequacy of the instrument.
170 See on this R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (“The Hellenistic Mystery Religions”), p. 38.
171 Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. marg.: laver of regeneration).
172 Wilhelm Heitmüller, Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur
altchristlichen Taufe (“In the Name of Jesus. A New Testament Study based
on Linguistics and Comparative Religion, with special Reference to
Early Christian baptism”), 1903, 347 pp. In this thorough and
extremely interesting study the author arrives at the result that in the
employment of the name of Jesus it is taken for granted that the name
in some way or other represents a power. The Christian “belief in
the name,” he holds, stands on the same footing as Jewish and
heathen beliefs. “The solemn pronouncement of the name of Jesus
at baptism is not a merely symbolic form, having to do, for example,
with the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus, but is thought of as
associated with real mystical, mysterious effects; the effects must,
however, be similar, mutatis mutandis, to those which are ascribed to
the use of the name in other cases: a being actually taken possession
of by the power which is designated by the ‘name’ of Jesus, the
expulsion of all hostile powers, consecration and inspiration.” “Baptism
in the name of Jesus represents, therefore, the combination of two
sacramental factors—water and the name.”
Unfortunately, Heitmüller has not emphasised the fact that the
Mystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.
It is also open to question whether the power of the name
and of water suffice, as he thinks, to explain the Pauline view of
baptism.
173 Paul Wernle, Die Anfänge unserer Religion, 1901, p. 129.
174 In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted
here in full:—
πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ίδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ καθαρμοὶ
άδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσὶ μέν ἔτι ζῶσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ
τετελευτήκασιν, ἃς δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶ ἐκεῖ κακῶν ἀπολύουσιν ὴμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας
δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει.
. . . “And they persuade, not only individuals, but whole cities
that sacrifices and pleasureable amusements afford absolution and
purification from crimes committed, both for the living and also for
the dead; these they call Mysteries (initiations), and they free us from
the torments of the other world, whereas terrible things await those
who neglect to offer sacrifice.” On expiation see Rohde, Psyche, i.
(1903), 259 ff.
175 Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the question, see Hollmann, Urchristentum in Korinth (“Primitive Christianity in Corinth”), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24.
176 R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, p. 84. The dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing between two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head.
177 In I Cor. vi. 11, after saying that thieves, adulterers, slanderers, and robbers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the Apostle proceeds, “And such were some of you. But ye were cleansed, ye were consecrated, ye were justified.” The passage is no doubt intended sarcastically, ironically, with reference to the fact that, in spite of their baptism, according to present appearances they have not changed much. In regard to self-delusion on the ground of baptism see also I Cor. x.
178 I Cor. i. 14-16.
179 See Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910), pp. 99, 100.
180 See above, p. 162, note 3.
181 In contrast with Heitmüller, who was described above as the
“hylic,” materialist (see p. 205).
R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre
Grundgedanken und Wirkungen (“The Hellenistic Mystery-religions.
Their fundamental Ideas and Influence”), 1910, 217 pp. The work is
composed out of a lecture delivered in the Clerical Theological Society
of Alsace-Lorraine (pp. 1-60), along with extensive notes and
excursuses (pp. 63-214).
182 Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the pneuma.
Reitzenstein believes himself to be able to show that all the passages
in Paul’s writings which refer to this subject “are explicable from
Hellenistic usage,” and leaves open the question whether they “are
all equally easy to understand on the basis of the Hebraic use of ruach
or nephesh, or the LXX. use of πνεῦμα.”
A detailed discussion is given of the following passages, Rom. vi. 1-14,
xii. I ff.; I Cor. ii., xiii., xv. 34 ff.; 2 Cor. iii. 18, v.1 ff., v. 6
ff., x.-xiii., and some interesting light is thrown on the Epistle to
Philemon (pp. 81, 82).
It may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay
“Paulus” (Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur, 1910, 136 pp.
pp. 107-136) estimates very highly the indirect influence of the
Hellenistic surroundings and language. In the second edition (1911, 142
pp.) he goes a little more fully into the individual problems of the
doctrine.
183 Even Holtzmann shares this confusion. “The Pauline doctrine,” he pronounces in his New Testament Theology (ii. p. 56), “is not exactly Philonian, but doubtless, like the closely allied Philonian doctrines and the more widely divergent later views, grew out of the same stock of Jewish reflection on the Creation-narratives. . . .”
184 Poimandres, p. 81 ff.
185 Reitzenstein takes much pains to render intelligible, by a series of examples from ancient and modern times, the “dual personality” which often seems to manifest itself in Paul (pp. 53-57. 207, 208). He overlooks the fact that in the form in which it occurs in Paul it is taken for granted by eschatology, and appears in Jesus and the disciples. It is much more primitive than anything found in Hellenistic mysticism or in any form of romanticism, since the distinction of outer appearance and inner being which occurs in Paul, depends upon the contrast of the two worlds which are struggling together for existence. The dual self-consciousness of Paul is, in contradistinction to all other cases, not subjectively but objectively conditioned. Besides, it depends on the temporal opposition of “then” and “now,” as naturally results from the ardent eschatological expectation. On the “doubling” of one’s own personality, such as is possible for Greek sensibility, see Rohde, Psyche, vol. ii. (1909), pp. 413, 414.
186 See pp. 57, 58.
187 See e.g. Reitzenstein, p. 209.
188 That Greek “eschatology” and early Christian are mutually exclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich’s Nekyia (1893, 238 pp.). The fantastic torments of hell as portrayed in the Apocalypse of Peter have nothing to do with the Jewish and primitive Christian eschatology, since the latter are concerned with the in-coming of the new world, and not with the special punishment of individuals. Dieterich is quite right when he explains this detailed description of torment as due to influences from the Orphic literature. Greek religious feeling was concerned with the fate of individuals after death. The thought of a coming world which dominates Jewish and primitive Christian eschatology is alien to it, because its “eschatology” was not created, like the former, by the historico-ethical conceptions and aspirations of successive generations of prophets.
189 Hermann Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments, 1903, 96 pp.
190 Max Maurenbrecher, Von Jerusalem nach Rom, 1910, 288 pp. This work is the continuation of Von Nazareth nach Golgatha, 1909, 274 pp.
191 W. B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums, 243 pp. It was issued in German in 1906 with a preface by P. W. Schmiedel. The author is Professor of Mathematics in Tulane University, New Orleans. The book consists of five somewhat disconnected essays: i. “The Pre-Christian Jesus”; ii. “The Significance of the Nick-name, The Nazarene”; iii. “Anastasis”; iv. “The Sower sows the Logos”; v. “Saeculi silentium.” (Behind this title masquerades a study of the external arguments for the historicity of the Pauline Epistles, in which Smith stammers out confusedly what Steck and van Manen had clearly expressed before him.)
192 Arthur Drews, Die Christusmythe, 1909, 190 pp.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER VIII SUMMING-UP AND FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
193 See above, p. 173 f.
194 Hence John’s indignation at seeing the “viper’s brood” approaching to take advantage of it?—TRANSLATOR.
195 For the sense of the term here, see above, p. 83, note. —TRANSLATOR.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
This book is the first edition of the translation. No second edition
was published until 1948 which contained only a few minor changes
anyway. Consequently there are a lot of errors/inconsistencies in the
spelling and hyphenation. I have left almost all of these as is,
except for a few cases where line-end hyphens needed to be corrected
(line 2496 on p. 65: thoroughgoing/thorough-going; line 7492 on p.
217: Rebirth/Re-Birth). The special case of ‘primitive-Christian’ ❬-❭
‘primitive Christian’ was examined in detail. In only six cases does
it seem that ‘primitive-Christian’ is used as a compound word. All the
others seem to be legitimate as separate words. The inconsistent uses
of naive (1), naïve (3), naively (1), naïvely (1), naïveté (3) were
left as is. So was a priori (7), à priori (2) and L’Apôtre (4),
L’Apotre (1). Two un-paired quotation marks were also left as is:
up-paired " p. 34 line 1528 (wrong but left in)
un-paired " n. 103 p. 134 line 9638 (wrong but left in)